Comments | gaping_lotus: My Thoughts on Proposition 8

gaping_lotus

My Thoughts on Proposition 8

May 26, 2009 19:00

What ever happened to a separation of church and state?

Marriage is a culturally and socially relative term. What right does a government have to enforce it's definition and limitation of marriage on a nation of people with diverse cultural and social backgrounds? Government should only be concerned with government matters such as taxation, health ( Read more... )

Comments 5

Yes On 8 michaelk1000 May 27 2009, 01:10:58 UTC

Your post has all the traits of not having thought through your positions. People oppose gay marriage because 1) they have a right to, 2) Marriage => Family => Building Block of Civilization, and 3) No religion in history, and no society until the last few years, has ever affirmed that homosexual unions are equivalent to heterosexual ones. When you say, "what gives a government the right," it makes no sense. That's what government does. It creates and enforces rules. In our society, those rules are based on the society's wants via democracy. Being a Judeo-Christian-based society, the U.S. has always understood that marriage is between two consenting adults of opposite sex. Period. You want to change that. What right have YOU? States have voted on the subject over and over again and it always comes up the same: People don't want it. Even most gays don't want it or care about it. Majority rules. End of issue ( ... )

Re: Yes On 8 gaping_lotus May 27 2009, 01:46:23 UTC

The point is, someone else getting married forces nothing on you. You are still entitled to your belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. But just because you believe that way does not give you the right to actually prevent gays from marrying. You seek to ban other's from having rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals. Same-sex couples are not seeking to take away anyone's rights but simply to enjoy the same rights other's already possess ( ... )

Re: Yes On 8 michaelk1000 May 27 2009, 17:11:01 UTC

Forcing something on me is not my objection, but you bring it up because, in the absence of a religious moral authority, this is how atheists make up their morality: Does it hurt someone else? My point is that you wish to redefine an institution of society that has been around for many thousands of years. It doesn't require a big debate to understand that this is dangerous ( ... )

Re: Yes On 8 henryfaber May 28 2009, 01:17:57 UTC

My point is that you wish to redefine an institution of society that has been around for many thousands of years. It doesn't require a big debate to understand that this is dangerous.
I'm not understanding your point here. Things change; it is the nature of the world. "Institutions" of society have mutated countless times, and yet society is still here.

I don't think married couples without children (and I know several) should be banned. They're at least providing a role model (man + woman) for marriage. But they're not contributing to the next generation, which is the purpose of marriage. I believe it's ridiculous to believe that kids can be raised just as well outside of marriage as within it. What on earth could you possibly base that on? 50% divorce rate. Your way is not working either. By your logic, 50% of the kids now are *just as bad off* as if they were raised by a couple of d00ds, since they are not in a traditional "marriage"-oriented family. Society is not falling apart. I see no Proposition 9 to force an ( ... )

Thread 5